PDA

View Full Version : Huard sucked, but the defense sucked more.



Three7s
11-04-2007, 05:37 PM
Huard wasn't very good at all today, he made bad decisions, and a lot of bad throws that the receivers had to bail him out on a lot of them. However, we still should have won the game, regardless of Huard's big interception at the end. Our, usually insane, defense blew it at the end against a deep ball by Favre. They should have seen this coming a mile away, but somehow, our defense is just that stupid. They already got us once with it in the game, it's how they've been winning most of their games, yet we give it up at the worst possible time for a game-deciding TD. It was inexcusable and the defense should be ripped a new one for the overall performance, just in the 4th quarter. We did get two turnovers, one was pretty huge, other than that, I wasn't impressed. Our defense has played better than this, and I wanna see it next week against the Broncos. That is all.

mxpxHERO
11-04-2007, 05:39 PM
how many times have the defense kept us in games? if it wasn't for them, we'd lose 2/3 of teh games we already played.

the offense has gotta help the defense. simple as that.

our turnovers turned into points stat is probably really bad. i don't remember how many turnovers/interceptions we had and didn't convert into points.

McLovin
11-04-2007, 05:40 PM
Huard wasn't very good at all today, he made bad decisions, and a lot of bad throws that the receivers had to bail him out on a lot of them. However, we still should have won the game, regardless of Huard's big interception at the end. Our, usually insane, defense blew it at the end against a deep ball by Favre. They should have seen this coming a mile away, but somehow, our defense is just that stupid. They already got us once with it in the game, it's how they've been winning most of their games, yet we give it up at the worst possible time for a game-deciding TD. It was inexcusable and the defense should be ripped a new one for the overall performance, just in the 4th quarter. We did get two turnovers, one was pretty huge, other than that, I wasn't impressed. Our defense has played better than this, and I wanna see it next week against the Broncos. That is all.

Actually blame for that would be the secondary, (Law) not the whole D. But Huard needs to go. Cant pull the blame from Huard on this one.

Three7s
11-04-2007, 05:45 PM
Yeah, I was generalizing, the defense is still a whole. I think it was Law and Pollard that got beat on that play, I just can't stand that kind of bull with a guy like Favre back there who's done it a WHOLE lot just this season. We should be ready for that kind of pass. Our offense didn't play as bad as people are making it out however. We scored 22 points, which is a lot for the Chiefs. Some of it was thanks to a turnover, but still. The Chiefs, all around, didn't play very good ball, and if it wasn't for Gonzalez, it would have been a blowout in favor of the Packers.

mxpxHERO
11-04-2007, 05:47 PM
amen and to think of all the tony gonzalez haters around the time around his contract negotiating....

Coach
11-04-2007, 07:32 PM
I thought the D played well except when it mattered most in the 4th quarter. They did seem to give up a lot of 3rd down conversions though.

hermhater
11-04-2007, 07:36 PM
I thought the D played well except when it mattered most in the 4th quarter. They did seem to give up a lot of 3rd down conversions though.

That is how they operate. I think we are last in stopping offenses on 3rd down, and last in converting 3rd downs on offense.

Coach
11-04-2007, 07:46 PM
That is how they operate. I think we are last in stopping offenses on 3rd down, and last in converting 3rd downs on offense.

Those are probably the most important stats in football.

hermhater
11-04-2007, 08:11 PM
I thought the D played well except when it mattered most in the 4th quarter. They did seem to give up a lot of 3rd down conversions though.


That is how they operate. I think we are last in stopping offenses on 3rd down, and last in converting 3rd downs on offense.


Those are probably the most important stats in football.


You said it admin!

We have got to be able to convert on 3rd down, if the D is not gonna be able to stop opponents on 3rd down.

chief31
11-04-2007, 08:13 PM
I am pretty sure that the majority of Chiefs fans have no idea what they are looking at when they see a football.

Damon Huard played an excellent football game. Period. He led this team to 22 points against a very good Packers defense. Yes, I said led.

He did make two mistakes. The first of those two wound-up being called an incompletion, while the second ended the game.

What appearently happened on the game-ending interception was that Huard was looking for Priest, who was supposed to be sitting underneath, and instead found Sammie Parker, who had been held-up on his crossing route. He made a very quick throw, but when you are throwing to a guy who is on a crossing route, while expecting a halfback underneath, is generally an interception.

Unfortunately, when you are getting pressured in a big hurry, on every other play, you have to make snap decisions. This one was the wrong one.

It is ridiculous how everyone wants to blame the quarterback for a horribly blown coverage by a safety. How Huard has to be the fall-guy for a lame offensive line. Blame Huard for the conservative offensive philosophy too.

I am so tired of defending Huards good play, that I hope they decide to throw Croyles future away for you people. I hope they decide to go ahead and throw our season away for you.

Let's throw Croyle in there so he can take the beating that awaits any Chiefs quarterback right now. That way you can start the "Time to draft a quarterback" chants.

How about those recievers who were "bailing out" Huard by doing their jobs like they are supposed to?

Guess what. No. We are not there yet, but I am about to pull this thing over and say "to he** with it, we're here." You appearently have no interest in getting to where we are going, so yes. We are there. Now get out!

McLovin
11-04-2007, 08:23 PM
I am pretty sure that the majority of Chiefs fans have no idea what they are looking at when they see a football.

Damon Huard played an excellent football game. Period. He led this team to 22 points against a very good Packers defense. Yes, I said led.

You have got to be kidding me. But you are showing your a true Huard Homer. Obviously we didnt watch the same game.

He did make two mistakes. The first of those two wound-up being called an incompletion, while the second ended the game.

What appearently happened on the game-ending interception was that Huard was looking for Priest, who was supposed to be sitting underneath, and instead found Sammie Parker, who had been held-up on his crossing route. He made a very quick throw, but when you are throwing to a guy who is on a crossing route, while expecting a halfback underneath, is generally an interception.

Unfortunately, when you are getting pressured in a big hurry, on every other play, you have to make snap decisions. This one was the wrong one.

It is ridiculous how everyone wants to blame the quarterback for a horribly blown coverage by a safety. How Huard has to be the fall-guy for a lame offensive line. Blame Huard for the conservative offensive philosophy too.

I blame both the coach and the Offensive line. I also place some of the blame on the D today but come on Huard Sucked it up own up to it.

I am so tired of defending Huards good play, that I hope they decide to throw Croyles future away for you people. I hope they decide to go ahead and throw our season away for you.



Let's throw Croyle in there so he can take the beating that awaits any Chiefs quarterback right now. That way you can start the "Time to draft a quarterback" chants.

How about those recievers who were "bailing out" Huard by doing their jobs like they are supposed to?

Guess what. No. We are not there yet, but I am about to pull this thing over and say "to he** with it, we're here." You appearently have no interest in getting to where we are going, so yes. We are there. Now get out!

I was going to try to be respectful today but all bets are off now. CROYLE CROYLE CROYLE, heck even start Drummond at QB hell he cant be any worse the Huard and he wouldnt be able to play QB and return kicks.

Are you really HERM this is nuts, oooh and you forgot we are still in first in the division. Come on watch a game and try to do some decent analysis.

BTW
19 of 32 for 213, Sacked 5 times for 40 yards, 2 TDs with 2 Ints, and now your coming in here and saying Admin, Guru, and HH among others don't know what we are talking about. Get a life.

chief31
11-04-2007, 08:43 PM
I was going to try to be respectful today but all bets are off now. CROYLE CROYLE CROYLE, heck even start Drummond at QB hell he cant be any worse the Huard and he wouldnt be able to play QB and return kicks.

Are you really HERM this is nuts, oooh and you forgot we are still in first in the division. Come on watch a game and try to do some biased analysis.

BTW
19 of 32 for 213, Sacked 5 times for 40 yards, 2 TDs with 2 Ints, and now your coming in here and saying Admin, Guru, and HH among others don't know what we are talking about. Get a life.

Appearently we weren't watching the same game. What channel was the "Huard is blamed for everything" game on? I didn't catch that one.

How about those numbers? Are those the absolute most sickening things that you have ever seen, or what? You can't look at anything objectively. You look at some "fair" statistics and all you can see is the worst numbers that have ever existed. Therefore, there is no point in discussing things with you.

However, I just love a lost cause.

McLovin
11-04-2007, 08:48 PM
Appearently we weren't watching the same game. What channel was the "Huard is blamed for everything" game on? I didn't catch that one.

How about those numbers? Are those the absolute most sickening things that you have ever seen, or what? You can't look at anything objectively. You look at some "fair" statistics and all you can see is the worst numbers that have ever existed. Therefore, there is no point in discussing things with you.

However, I just love a lost cause.

We agree on something, because Huard is a lost cause.

Guru
11-04-2007, 08:55 PM
I just don't like Huard. So sue me. Attacking intelligence though? Give me a break.

I won't be responding to any further attacks on intelligence or character. It is a DAMN GAME. Be respectful to each other or leave.

chief31
11-04-2007, 09:01 PM
I just don't like Huard. So sue me. Attacking intelligence though? Give me a break.

I won't be responding to any further attacks on intelligence or character. It is a DAMN GAME. Be respectful to each other or leave.

Oh lighten up.

Polleo Pit Man
11-04-2007, 09:03 PM
Its doesnt matter how good or bad huard did! We need a change. A dramatic change, why not try croyle, what do we have to lose? Another game that we should have won? Big deal. Or we can go on being one of the worst offense's of all time!!!

Guru
11-04-2007, 09:03 PM
Oh lighten up.

Just tired of people taking things so personally. Discuss. Don't berate. That is why I came to this site. RESPECTFUL posting.

chief31
11-04-2007, 09:07 PM
Its doesnt matter how good or bad huard did! We need a change. A dramatic change, why not try croyle, what do we have to lose? Another game that we should have won? Big deal. Or we can go on being one of the worst offense's of all time!!!

This is the only argument that really makes sense to me. But, since the Donks and Chargers both decided to get their ***es handed to them today, to teams that aren't as good as the team that barely beat us, I say keep trying.


Just tired of people taking things so personally. Discuss. Don't berate. That is why I came to this site. RESPECTFUL posting.

Well, sorry for the exaggeration there. It happens. Even I get a bit emotional when posting immediately after a game. (Try not to tell the others though. K?)

spiman
11-04-2007, 09:09 PM
Woo..WE R in 1st place.. In a once was thee best Div in footblll..But The O line.. No running game.. Our bread & butter..Now what? Replace--What? TOO many things to do.. Leave well enough alone I say..
Brett did what he does best--pixie Dusted us today..

chief31
11-04-2007, 09:16 PM
Woo..WE R in 1st place.. In a once was thee best Div in footblll..But The O line.. No running game.. Our bread & butter..Now what? Replace--What? TOO many things to do.. Leave well enough alone I say..
Brett did what he does best--pixie Dusted us today..
Yes he did.

Coach
11-04-2007, 09:31 PM
Guess what. No. We are not there yet, but I am about to pull this thing over and say "to he** with it, we're here." You appearently have no interest in getting to where we are going, so yes. We are there. Now get out!

What? Either I missed this movie, or you need to read your posts before hitting submit.

timsatt1
11-04-2007, 09:33 PM
anyone who thinks the D played bad or blame the D is DEAD WRONG.

I think the key stat to our team's success this year is that the D is the best in the NFL defending the red zone...or at least were before this game.

Also, before this game, the Chiefs were the ONLY team in the nfl not to let their opponent score more than 20 points.

Every team is going to lose some games, and today's game was not a must win. We simply played one of the best teams in the NFL and one of the all-time greatest qbs who is known for his long bomb throws.

Don't be too mad about this game. Our team looked good and intimidating. They look like a real threat and our defense is coming together, no, they did not play bad. Open your eyes. We played good and lost to a great team.

Polleo Pit Man
11-04-2007, 09:33 PM
What? Either I missed this movie, or you need to read your posts before hitting submit.
Who is gonna be responsible? So far nobody takes credit for our terrible display of offense!

chief31
11-04-2007, 09:35 PM
What? Either I missed this movie, or you need to read your posts before hitting submit.
It is an ongoing thing in regards to the "Croyle now!" threads.

I said that the "Croyle now!" bunch reminded me of a bunch of kids in the backseat repeating, over and over, "Are we there yet?". Then, after each response, I close with "No. We are not there yet.".

Polleo Pit Man
11-04-2007, 09:38 PM
anyone who thinks the D played bad or blame the D is DEAD WRONG.

I think the key stat to our team's success this year is that the D is the best in the NFL defending the red zone...or at least were before this game.

Also, before this game, the Chiefs were the ONLY team in the nfl not to let their opponent score more than 20 points.

Every team is going to lose some games, and today's game was not a must win. We simply played one of the best teams in the NFL and one of the all-time greatest qbs who is known for his long bomb throws.

Don't be too mad about this game. Our team looked good and intimidating. They look like a real threat and our defense is coming together, no, they did not play bad. Open your eyes. We played good and lost to a great team.
The D did its job! But our offense didnt come close! If you have "the D is the best in the NFL defending the red zone...or at least were before this game." Then you should not lose a game like this! Face it, our offense is horrible and in need of a dramatic change! Maybe if Priest can start that may help get a running game started but we have no consistant offense what so ever!!
Our defense isnt scoring therefore we "will" lose unless our offense can get better!!!!!!

timsatt1
11-04-2007, 09:41 PM
It is an ongoing thing in regards to the "Croyle now!" threads.

I said that the "Croyle now!" bunch reminded me of a bunch of kids in the backseat repeating, over and over, "Are we there yet?". Then, after each response, I close with "No. We are not there yet.".

well quit thinking that you are for sure right that croyle will go in there and suck it up.

We are asking for croyle because we think he might be able to turn our offense around.

and because YOu dont agree, YOU have to insult the rest of the people here asking for croyle with your analogy of us being kids in the back seat. good stuff buddy.

You know your ***Mods edit***. haha. keep crying like the little baby you are. You need to go find a board where people share your wacko opinions.

If a tree falls down in the forest, and you are there to witness it, did it really fall down?

if huard plays a bad game, and you are there to see it in person, did he really play a bad game?

how many interceptions has he thrown this year? how many touchdowns?

time for a change.

chief31
11-04-2007, 10:03 PM
well quit thinking that you are for sure right that croyle will go in there and suck it up.

Well, I don't want Huard to keep starting because I am convinced that Croyle will play poorly, Jr. I want Huard to continue to start because he is doing a good job, considering the offense that he is being given.

We are asking for croyle because we think he might be able to turn our offense around.

And I am asking for him to stay on the sidelines until we can protect him, the season is lost, or Huard actually plays a poor game, or two.

and because YOu dont agree, YOU have to insult the rest of the people here asking for croyle with your analogy of us being kids in the back seat. good stuff buddy.

But you keep acting like kids in the backseat. We have played eight games and after each of them I have been hearing how poorly Huard played. Not so much the offensive line, not so much that there is no running game, not so much that the game-planning is weak, and not so much that the offensive philosophy is designed to be weak. Just that Huard is the problem.

You know your ***Mods edit***. haha. keep crying like the little baby you are. You need to go find a board where people share your wacko opinions.

Oh no!!! An internet tough guy.

If a tree falls down in the forest, and you are there to witness it, did it really fall down?

if huard plays a bad game, and you are there to see it in person, did he really play a bad game?

He got 22 points with a horrible offense. Period.

how many interceptions has he thrown this year? how many touchdowns?

How many times has he been sacked, pressured, hit as he throws? How many times has he been in second/third and long because of a poor running game?

time for a change.

Well, maybe you should call Momma, because I am not changing you.

P.S. I am getting real tired of telling you about the cussing. It takes very little effort to go back and edit your own post. Try it. I assure you that it is easy.

Three7s
11-04-2007, 10:48 PM
I already said it, the defense played alright until the 4th quarter, that's when it all matters most. The offense wasn't very good at first, so what? They still scored 22 points in the end, normally I expect to win by scoring that many points with our defense. I know the Packers are a great team, but we had them if we had just stopped them on one drive, and we gave up the bomb. That's hard to swallow. Again, everyone is saying "BOOOH HUARD, YOU SUCK THROW ANOTHER PICK WHY DON'T YA, THEN CROYLE MAY COME IN!", come on, do you guys really expect this guy to perform like Brady or Manning every time it's a last drive with the game on the line? I sure don't! I knew if the Packers had taken the lead, they would win in that final 5 minutes. I was just hoping the defense would stop them, but they didn't. Hopefully, that won't happen again, and we'll go back to our brick-wall like defense next week!

Polleo Pit Man
11-04-2007, 10:54 PM
I already said it, the defense played alright until the 4th quarter, that's when it all matters most. The offense wasn't very good at first, so what? They still scored 22 points in the end, normally I expect to win by scoring that many points with our defense. I know the Packers are a great team, but we had them if we had just stopped them on one drive, and we gave up the bomb. That's hard to swallow. Again, everyone is saying "BOOOH HUARD, YOU SUCK THROW ANOTHER PICK WHY DON'T YA, THEN CROYLE MAY COME IN!", come on, do you guys really expect this guy to perform like Brady or Manning every time it's a last drive with the game on the line? I sure don't! I knew if the Packers had taken the lead, they would win in that final 5 minutes. I was just hoping the defense would stop them, but they didn't. Hopefully, that won't happen again, and we'll go back to our brick-wall like defense next week!
Yes but how long can you rely on your defense to "Save The Game"? We need an offense and if it means taking chances with Croyle or anyone for that matter we need to try somthing! Obviously nothing has worked to this point!

And what do you expect, our defense to stop Favre, Manning, Brady?

WE NEED A OFFENSE! We need a spark , somthing to get us going and NOT in the seocond half! PLAY ONE!!!!!

timsatt1
11-04-2007, 11:15 PM
I already said it, the defense played alright until the 4th quarter, that's when it all matters most. The offense wasn't very good at first, so what? They still scored 22 points in the end, normally I expect to win by scoring that many points with our defense. I know the Packers are a great team, but we had them if we had just stopped them on one drive, and we gave up the bomb. That's hard to swallow. Again, everyone is saying "BOOOH HUARD, YOU SUCK THROW ANOTHER PICK WHY DON'T YA, THEN CROYLE MAY COME IN!", come on, do you guys really expect this guy to perform like Brady or Manning every time it's a last drive with the game on the line? I sure don't! I knew if the Packers had taken the lead, they would win in that final 5 minutes. I was just hoping the defense would stop them, but they didn't. Hopefully, that won't happen again, and we'll go back to our brick-wall like defense next week!

i thought the turning point of the game...or i should say what ended the game for the chiefs was when the packers challenged webbs catch and won the challenge. Had webb got both feet in, the game would have ended MUCH different. The nfl is a game of yards and inches. We didnt get that play. we lost to a good team. Not sure why everyoen is overreacting.

I think some major changes could help this team, starting with QB, but even so, we are where we need to be, in first.

what is our goal for the year? to make the playoffs...or to win it all?

i sure dont think we have a realistic shot at winning it all behind huards arm so i think our goal right now is to win the afc west and gain experience for the future of this YOUNG team.

yeah, it sucks being in a year where you are not competing for the super bowl, but that is the year we are in, the rebuilding process.

...but sadly we are currently rebuilding around a 34 year old back up quarterback.

Polleo Pit Man
11-04-2007, 11:31 PM
i thought the turning point of the game...or i should say what ended the game for the chiefs was when the packers challenged webbs catch and won the challenge. Had webb got both feet in, the game would have ended MUCH different. The nfl is a game of yards and inches. We didnt get that play. we lost to a good team. Not sure why everyoen is overreacting.

I think some major changes could help this team, starting with QB, but even so, we are where we need to be, in first.

what is our goal for the year? to make the playoffs...or to win it all?

i sure dont think we have a realistic shot at winning it all behind huards arm so i think our goal right now is to win the afc west and gain experience for the future of this YOUNG team.

yeah, it sucks being in a year where you are not competing for the super bowl, but that is the year we are in, the rebuilding process.

...but sadly we are currently rebuilding around a 34 year old back up quarterback.
True that is! We've already won too many to get a decent pick, but I wanna see some change. I wanna see a two sided team. Not just defense!

Three7s
11-05-2007, 12:59 AM
We aren't the Colts or Patriots, our offense is what it is, we just have to win with what we got.

Polleo Pit Man
11-05-2007, 01:24 AM
We aren't the Colts or Patriots, our offense is what it is, we just have to win with what we got.
Well today we lost with what we have. So maybee we think about changing things around? Doing somthing different?

chief31
11-05-2007, 01:35 AM
Well today we lost with what we have. So maybee we think about changing things around? Doing somthing different?

How about if we make the experimental changes to the actual problem areas. They would be located on the offensive line. We could just replace a couple of guys with their backups and see what happens.

hermhater
11-05-2007, 01:36 AM
How about if we make the experimental changes to the actual problem areas. They would be located on the offensive line. We could just replace a couple of guys with their backups and see what happens.

Post of the month.

Why has no one else (the Chiefs coaches, or myself) thought of that?

Cuz this just ain't working!

Who is next on the depth chart?

Have you checked them out?

Chiefster
11-05-2007, 01:42 AM
How about if we make the experimental changes to the actual problem areas. They would be located on the offensive line. We could just replace a couple of guys with their backups and see what happens.

Exactly! They couldn't do any worse!


Good reply!

McLovin
11-05-2007, 01:47 AM
Next on the depth chart is

Herb Taylor (didn't even know who he was or that he was on the team) Backing up Waters)

Rudy Niswanger (heard he may end up being great and he is about ready to be a starter but dont know where I heard it) Backing up Wiegmann and Welbourn.

Turley is backing up Terry

And Svitek is backing up McIntosh. I think Svitek has played but dont think he has done too good either.

Three7s
11-05-2007, 02:28 AM
I'd put in Niswanger for Welbourn or Wiegman. None of those two have really done all that well this season, the problem with putting new guys in, is that they have to adjust to each other and work together, which could make things worse in the short-term.

chief31
11-05-2007, 02:51 AM
Well today we lost with what we have. So maybee we think about changing things around? Doing somthing different?


Post of the month.

Why has no one else (the Chiefs coaches, or myself) thought of that?

Cuz this just ain't working!

Who is next on the depth chart?

Have you checked them out?
Appearently, we can try Wil Svitek and Herb Taylor.

OMG, it's worse than I thought.

I've seen very little of the rookie Herb Taylor, bur he was a sixth round pick, and Svitek was horrible when I last saw him.

Polleo Pit Man
11-05-2007, 02:52 AM
Appearently, we can try Wil Svitek and Herb Taylor.

OMG, it's worse than I thought.

I've seen very little of the rookie Herb Taylor, bur he was a sixth round pick, and Svitek was horrible when I last saw him.
Lets just start Croyle and air it out!!!!!!!!!!!

hermhater
11-05-2007, 03:38 AM
Appearently, we can try Wil Svitek and Herb Taylor.

OMG, it's worse than I thought.

I've seen very little of the rookie Herb Taylor, bur he was a sixth round pick, and Svitek was horrible when I last saw him.

Seriously.

Why is it you telling us this stuff, rather than the "media"?

Is it so boring to be analyzing Offensive lines that there is nothing in print besides your analysis?


:sign0153:

chief31
11-05-2007, 03:53 AM
Seriously.

Why is it you telling us this stuff, rather than the "media"?

Is it so boring to be analyzing Offensive lines that there is nothing in print besides your analysis?


:sign0153:

That's the main reason that you don't hear it from the media too often. Most people find offensive line play to be boring, so why report on it.

hermhater
11-05-2007, 04:00 AM
That's the main reason that you don't hear it from the media too often. Most people find offensive line play to be boring, so why report on it.

So the most important part of the offense is ignored to make highlights of sacks, interceptions, and great passes from the QB?

Seems biased.

http://www.chiefscrowd.com/forums/images/imported/2007/10/416.jpg

chief31
11-05-2007, 04:09 AM
So the most important part of the offense is ignored to make highlights of sacks, interceptions, and great passes from the QB?

Seems biased.



It's just popularity.Just like people blaming Huard for everything, and people who are bashing LJs play lately. I only seem to bash LJs play because I predicted that without Will, Willie and T-Rich, this would happen to him.

luv
11-05-2007, 04:11 AM
It's just popularity.Just like people blaming Huard for everything, and people who are bashing LJs play lately. I only seem to bash LJs play because I predicted that without Will, Willie and T-Rich, this would happen to him.
LJ's used to having a screen. Priest looked good running to th outside a few times today. Did you see him line up at the WR position?

hermhater
11-05-2007, 04:16 AM
It's just popularity.Just like people blaming Huard for everything, and people who are bashing LJs play lately. I only seem to bash LJs play because I predicted that without Will, Willie and T-Rich, this would happen to him.

If people don't know that the base of your offense is your line then I guess there is no telling them.

The D I am not so educated on, but I see what you mean about getting away from the O linemen.
:beer:

chief31
11-05-2007, 04:18 AM
LJ's used to having a screen. Priest looked good running to th outside a few times today. Did you see him line up at the WR position?

I did not. I will have to look for that one. I also thought he looked very good, in limited action. His numbers didn't exactly stand out, 3 - 8, but he also ran for six yards that was negated when the Chiefs accepted a penalty. That would be 4 - 14, three and a half yards per carry. Still not stellar, but certainly progress.

luv
11-05-2007, 04:21 AM
I did not. I will have to look for that one. I also thought he looked very good, in limited action. His numbers didn't exactly stand out, 3 - 8, but he also ran for six yards that was negated when the Chiefs accepted a penalty. That would be 4 - 14, three and a half yards per carry. Still not stellar, but certainly progress.
He lined up to the right.

chief31
11-05-2007, 04:23 AM
He lined up to the right.

Do you know about when it happened? Like which quarter?

luv
11-05-2007, 04:26 AM
Do you know about when it happened? Like which quarter?
I know it was the scond half. Based on the direction they were going, I believe it was the 4th quarter.

garciakcfan
11-05-2007, 09:44 AM
All I have to say after reading these posts' is WOW most of you people want to abandon ship??? WAKE UP!!!! we're still in first place, and we lost to a good football team...That was probably one of the best games I've watched in a long time even though it didnt go in our favor. Huard did make two very costly decisions but made some good plays to keep us in the game... Come on people this is our team everybody gets so wrapped up in wanting changes and this guy is bad and he needs to go, just cheer for your team the season isn't over!!!. If there was a problem not related to a player, I still think the offensive play calling is a little suspect. But I love my CHIEFS no matter what and will cheer for whoever they put out there.

sling58
11-05-2007, 03:33 PM
I thought the D played well except when it mattered most in the 4th quarter. They did seem to give up a lot of 3rd down conversions though.


Agreed. The D played well against a great QB. Yeah we lost but you can't put that all on the D.

luv
11-05-2007, 04:06 PM
All I have to say after reading these posts' is WOW most of you people want to abandon ship??? WAKE UP!!!! we're still in first place, and we lost to a good football team...That was probably one of the best games I've watched in a long time even though it didnt go in our favor. Huard did make two very costly decisions but made some good plays to keep us in the game... Come on people this is our team everybody gets so wrapped up in wanting changes and this guy is bad and he needs to go, just cheer for your team the season isn't over!!!. If there was a problem not related to a player, I still think the offensive play calling is a little suspect. But I love my CHIEFS no matter what and will cheer for whoever they put out there.
You are going to fit in so well here. Do you drink a lot of beer?

wolfpack
11-05-2007, 06:01 PM
the long pass at the end was more the gun`s fault than pollard or edwards. it dosent take a rocket scientist to know that favre likes to throw down the middle of the field. but what were we in,,,, cover 2. cover 2 safties are in the hash marks. cover 2 use tobe good but good qb`s beat everytime.

anaeelbackwards
11-05-2007, 07:23 PM
all of the afc west lost, and we are still in first place... the light is still shining at the end of the tunnel. :sign0104:

hermhater
11-05-2007, 07:28 PM
the long pass at the end was more the gun`s fault than pollard or edwards. it dosent take a rocket scientist to know that favre likes to throw down the middle of the field. but what were we in,,,, cover 2. cover 2 safties are in the hash marks. cover 2 use tobe good but good qb`s beat everytime.


I was b!tching about not having a safety deep the whole game in ventrilo.

I couldn't believe how many times they allowed GB's TE's and WR get past the ENTIRE secondary.

sling58
11-05-2007, 08:13 PM
all of the afc west lost, and we are still in first place... the light is still shining at the end of the tunnel. :sign0104:

Way to be positive my Chiefs friend. I think the tunnel is getting longer though but I will never waver in my faith on my team. GO CHIEFS!!!!!!!!!!!

McLovin
11-05-2007, 08:27 PM
This year the light at the end of the tunnel might just be a train.

chief31
11-06-2007, 01:16 AM
the long pass at the end was more the gun`s fault than pollard or edwards. it dosent take a rocket scientist to know that favre likes to throw down the middle of the field. but what were we in,,,, cover 2. cover 2 safties are in the hash marks. cover 2 use tobe good but good qb`s beat everytime.

On that play, it was just a terrific pass and the defense did what they could. Favre threw it into double-coverage and managed to find his recievers hands.

hermhater
11-06-2007, 01:23 AM
On that play, it was just a terrific pass and the defense did what they could. Favre threw it into double-coverage and managed to find his recievers hands.

So you don't think we should have had a safety deep?

I realize it was a great pass and catch, but we should have had someone deep to make sure the long ball doesn't reach the endzone.

Educate me.

chief31
11-06-2007, 02:53 AM
So you don't think we should have had a safety deep?

I realize it was a great pass and catch, but we should have had someone deep to make sure the long ball doesn't reach the endzone.

Educate me.

Looked to me like Pollard was there. I didn't find any fault in the coverage, except that Pollard could have tried to be there a bit sooner. What I saw was a pass that landed in a very small space of availabilityt for the reciever.

hermhater
11-06-2007, 03:05 AM
So you don't think we should have had a safety deep?

I realize it was a great pass and catch, but we should have had someone deep to make sure the long ball doesn't reach the endzone.

Educate me.


Looked to me like Pollard was there. I didn't find any fault in the coverage, except that Pollard could have tried to be there a bit sooner. What I saw was a pass that landed in a very small space of availabilityt for the reciever.

The guy beat both our safeteties because they were in cover 2. It was an excellent pass but the safeties wouldn't have been 1 or 2 yards behind the receiver it they didn't have to come and cover from the hashes.

chief31
11-06-2007, 03:19 AM
The guy beat both our safeteties because they were in cover 2. It was an excellent pass but the safeties wouldn't have been 1 or 2 yards behind the receiver it they didn't have to come and cover from the hashes.

Without the game footage that NFL coaches get, with a full view of every player on the field, during each play, It is difficult to judge what the safety did. Often, an offense will run a TE through the 'seam'. This keeps the safety just a little bit to the inside. Or they might have had a slot reciever, or even a halfback in that area. If the Safety is responsible for two guy who are running long routes, then there is likely to be some room to throw the ball to.

hermhater
11-06-2007, 03:30 AM
The guy beat both our safeteties because they were in cover 2. It was an excellent pass but the safeties wouldn't have been 1 or 2 yards behind the receiver it they didn't have to come and cover from the hashes.


Without the game footage that NFL coaches get, with a full view of every player on the field, during each play, It is difficult to judge what the safety did. Often, an offense will run a TE through the 'seam'. This keeps the safety just a little bit to the inside. Or they might have had a slot reciever, or even a halfback in that area. If the Safety is responsible for two guy who are running long routes, then there is likely to be some room to throw the ball to.

Both safteties got beat because they were covering for the prevent. There was no deep pass coverage happening. The long ball that got caught before that happened with cover 2 and one of our line backers covering the GB opponent.

Not trying to argue with you but how can you not cover the deep pass in the middle against Favre?

It is not a talent issue, but wrong coverage called.

There is a serious breakdown in coverage by the DB's this game.

Three7s
11-06-2007, 03:55 AM
I agree with you big time, hermhater. That's the only thing that really bugged me about the game. I was, actually, expecting to lose, some of you know that from the prediction thread I posted a long time ago with game-by-game breakdowns. I was just mad at the way we lost it. I don't think the Packers are that much better than us. They have a solid defense, but I think ours is better if it plays to it's capability. Their offense is, obviously, better than ours. I don't know how the pass coverage was beaten on that play to the extent it was. I'm not mad about the completion actually, that's what Favre does. I'm mad that no one was there to stop him after he caught the ball. That's the safety's number one job. Make sure there is no way he gets a ton of yards after the catch, then try and break up the play or whatever. I'm not sure which safety it was that was there, I think it was actually Page, but when he saw Donnie Edwards running with him, that should be a big alert that he needs to get back and infront of the receivers route in a hurry. I know some coaches hate giving up big completions, but I'll gladly give up a big completion over an automatic TD any day. Hopefully, they work on this safety problem.

chief31
11-06-2007, 04:03 AM
Both safteties got beat because they were covering for the prevent. There was no deep pass coverage happening. The long ball that got caught before that happened with cover 2 and one of our line backers covering the GB opponent.

Not trying to argue with you but how can you not cover the deep pass in the middle against Favre?

It is not a talent issue, but wrong coverage called.

There is a serious breakdown in coverage by the DB's this game.

If we are talking about the same play, then I'm pretty sure it was Pollard and Law in coverage.

hermhater
11-06-2007, 04:07 AM
I agree with you big time, hermhater. That's the only thing that really bugged me about the game. I was, actually, expecting to lose, some of you know that from the prediction thread I posted a long time ago with game-by-game breakdowns. I was just mad at the way we lost it. I don't think the Packers are that much better than us. They have a solid defense, but I think ours is better if it plays to it's capability. Their offense is, obviously, better than ours. I don't know how the pass coverage was beaten on that play to the extent it was. I'm not mad about the completion actually, that's what Favre does. I'm mad that no one was there to stop him after he caught the ball. That's the safety's number one job. Make sure there is no way he gets a ton of yards after the catch, then try and break up the play or whatever. I'm not sure which safety it was that was there, I think it was actually Page, but when he saw Donnie Edwards running with him, that should be a big alert that he needs to get back and infront of the receivers route in a hurry. I know some coaches hate giving up big completions, but I'll gladly give up a big completion over an automatic TD any day. Hopefully, they work on this safety problem.

I wish you would put some f@rking Enter buttons into your posts, but you are EXACTLY F@RKING RIGHT!

Why the hell were we playing cover 2 when Favre has been throwing down the middle of the field and winning games with it?

I realize the Denver game was ALSO (Chief31) won by a blown coverage in the cover 2 by a GB receiver/TE(I can't tell them apart, they are all huge) outside of the hashmarks.

Wast that our game plan? Cover the sidelines? With 8 minutes left in the game?

I call a top 10 defensive breakdown.

hermhater
11-06-2007, 04:07 AM
If we are talking about the same play, then I'm pretty sure it was Pollard and Law in coverage.

Wasn't Law.

Three7s
11-06-2007, 04:16 AM
I wish you would put some f@rking Enter buttons into your posts, but you are EXACTLY F@RKING RIGHT!

Why the hell were we playing cover 2 when Favre has been throwing down the middle of the field and winning games with it?

I realize the Denver game was ALSO (Chief31) won by a blown coverage in the cover 2 by a GB receiver/TE(I can't tell them apart, they are all huge) outside of the hashmarks.

Wast that our game plan? Cover the sidelines? With 8 minutes left in the game?

I call a top 10 defensive breakdown.
My bad, when I get into typing a lot, sometimes I forget to hit enter.

anaeelbackwards
11-06-2007, 04:20 AM
Wasn't Law.

edwards was definitely apart of the play.

chief31
11-06-2007, 04:28 AM
edwards was definitely apart of the play.
The play that Donnie Edwards was involved in was when the Packers had trips-right, I think. They had a WR go deep down each sideline, leaving Edwrads with man coverage on a WR in the seam. The safety, Page was near, but he was toward the outside, because he was dealing with two deep routes, the one to the outside, and the one in the seam.

hermhater
11-06-2007, 04:46 AM
The play that Donnie Edwards was involved in was when the Packers had trips-right, I think. They had a WR go deep down each sideline, leaving Edwrads with man coverage on a WR in the seam. The safety, Page was near, but he was toward the outside, because he was dealing with two deep routes, the one to the outside, and the one in the seam.

It was Edwards, as far as I remember, I don't remember the O's formation or the outside routes, but I honestly don't think the receivers on the outside ran the sidelines.

They either ran quick slants or out patterns, because there was nothing but that TE (I think that is what he was, the GB receivers and TE's look the same, and have the same ability, those guys are good) that beat DJ through the middle of the field.

chief31
11-06-2007, 05:23 AM
It was Edwards, as far as I remember, I don't remember the O's formation or the outside routes, but I honestly don't think the receivers on the outside ran the sidelines.

They either ran quick slants or out patterns, because there was nothing but that TE (I think that is what he was, the GB receivers and TE's look the same, and have the same ability, those guys are good) that beat DJ through the middle of the field.

So you are thinking that Page and Pollard were way to the outside, for no valid reason? They were there for something.

I am pretty sure that both of the outside recievers ran deep 'out' patterns, or something to that effect, to draw the safeties to the outside, leaving the slot reciever, or tight end, in man coverage with a linebacker.

That is how Tony Gonzales is frequently open in that deep seam. But opposing defenses are so aware of Gonzales, that they can't stray as far to the outside.

Most head coaches in the NFL know that that deep middle is a weak spot for the cover-2, and that is why they design and use plays like that.

hermhater
11-06-2007, 05:31 AM
So you are thinking that Page and Pollard were way to the outside, for no valid reason? They were there for something.

I am pretty sure that both of the outside recievers ran deep 'out' patterns, or something to that effect, to draw the safeties to the outside, leaving the slot reciever, or tight end, in man coverage with a linebacker.

That is how Tony Gonzales is frequently open in that deep seam. But opposing defenses are so aware of Gonzales, that they can't stray as far to the outside.

Most head coaches in the NFL know that that deep middle is a weak spot for the cover-2, and that is why they design and use plays like that.

I don't think it was Page and Pollard. It was one of the two, plus another lower on the depth chart safety that was involved.

My point is that there should have bee ANY safety deep in the middle.

Your argument says that we don't have the talent to cover the outs AND the middle of the field.

We could do it, since Law is our best corner, and we would be first in the AFC WEST!

chief31
11-06-2007, 06:47 AM
I don't think it was Page and Pollard. It was one of the two, plus another lower on the depth chart safety that was involved.

My point is that there should have bee ANY safety deep in the middle.

Your argument says that we don't have the talent to cover the outs AND the middle of the field.

We could do it, since Law is our best corner, and we would be first in the AFC WEST!


The fact is that the cover-2 defense has two deep safeties. One for each half of the field. The weakness to the cover-2 is that if there is a deep reciever on each side, to the outside, who covers the deep guy in the middle?

On the play that Edwards found himself alone with that reciever, Page shouldn't have been as far to the outside as he was. Similar to biting a play-action. Just that extra little step can cause you to be out of position.

On top of being out of position, and I'll have to rewatch the play but, I think Page also botched an opportunity to make the tackle, and even knocked Donnie Edwards out of the play too.

Page misse alot of tackles and tends to take some very bad angles, in pursuit. Even to the extent that he actually winds-up blocking his own teammates from the ball-carrier.

luv
11-06-2007, 01:49 PM
The fact is that the cover-2 defense has two deep safeties. One for each half of the field. The weakness to the cover-2 is that if there is a deep reciever on each side, to the outside, who covers the deep guy in the middle?

On the play that Edwards found himself alone with that reciever, Page shouldn't have been as far to the outside as he was. Similar to biting a play-action. Just that extra little step can cause you to be out of position.

On top of being out of position, and I'll have to rewatch the play but, I think Page also botched an opportunity to make the tackle, and even knocked Donnie Edwards out of the play too.

Page misse alot of tackles and tends to take some very bad angles, in pursuit. Even to the extent that he actually winds-up blocking his own teammates from the ball-carrier.
I thought the corners covered those running deep? Wouldn't the MLB be responsible for covering the middle? The safeties are there to pick up the leftovers.

DrunkHillbilly
11-06-2007, 02:19 PM
The bottom line is that the Chiefs have been getting burned on that deep route down the middle for YEARS!!!! Doesn't matter the coach or the D coordinator. I don't have any reasoning on the why's or why nots but it has been happening for YEARS and YEARS now and I have watched us get beat toooooo many times because of that one play!!! Makes me sick because you can count on it happening ALMOST every single game!!!

chief31
11-06-2007, 02:33 PM
I thought the corners covered those running deep? Wouldn't the MLB be responsible for covering the middle? The safeties are there to pick up the leftovers.

With the cover-2, the corners stay shallow, allowing deep routes to go to the safeties. The MLB is responsible for the middle of the field, but it is often a big mis-match.

m0ef0e
11-06-2007, 03:01 PM
Guys, we haven't been beat that often by the deep ball this year really, until this game. Keep in mind that Favre has one of the best and most on-target deep-throws of any QB ever in the NFL. Deep plays are nothing new to the Packers or their opponents but Favre and company do it just as well or better than anybody, making it really hard to defend. A few mistakes at the end of the game cost us the win. The Packers finished and we didn't. Other than that, we did ok against a division-leading team that has only one loss halfway through the season. It sucks to lose-- even to a quality football team like Green Bay. However, the game was never out of reach against one of the better teams in the NFL. The Chiefs obviously need to get better still but at least we don't look as bad as the Ravens on offense...

Three7s
11-06-2007, 03:02 PM
With the cover-2, the corners stay shallow, allowing deep routes to go to the safeties. The MLB is responsible for the middle of the field, but it is often a big mis-match.
Correct, and that mis-match is what the safeties need to watch out for, they clearly didn't on that play.

Three7s
11-06-2007, 03:04 PM
Guys, we haven't been beat that often by the deep ball this year really, until this game. Keep in mind that Favre has one of the best and most on-target deep-throws of any QB ever in the NFL. Deep plays are nothing new to the Packers or their opponents but Favre and company do it just as well or better than anybody, making it really hard to defend. A few mistakes at the end of the game cost us the win. The Packers finished and we didn't. Other than that, we did ok against a division-leading team that has only one loss halfway through the season. It sucks to lose-- even to a quality football team like Green Bay. However, the game was never out of reach against one of the better teams in the NFL. The Chiefs obviously need to get better still but at least we don't look as bad as the Ravens on offense...
Actually, we have. The Texans got us with it, the Jags got us with it,vas well as the Raiders, now the Packers.

m0ef0e
11-06-2007, 03:16 PM
Actually, we have. The Texans got us with it, the Jags got us with it,vas well as the Raiders, now the Packers.

The Raiders got us on some play-action trickery while we were focused on stopping their run and the Jags hurt us much more on 15-yard passes than 50-yarders. Everybody knows the Packers are going to throw it deep and still can't stop it-- a testiment to their prowess.

McLovin
11-06-2007, 04:13 PM
The Raiders got us on some play-action trickery while we were focused on stopping their run and the Jags hurt us much more on 15-yard passes than 50-yarders. Everybody knows the Packers are going to throw it deep and still can't stop it-- a testiment to their prowess.
And that is what I want from a QB. One that hurts people deep. By the way Favre did hurt us deep but I agree that he has been one of the few.

McLovin
11-06-2007, 04:16 PM
Let me see if I can explain my point without offending anyone on the Huard v Croyle issue, Huard is a great backup, backups come in when the true starter is hurt, they manage the game but don't take a lot of risks.

A good starter will thread the needle and put the ball into coverage, even double coverage hard enough that only the intended person can get it, A good starter has the arm to throw 40 to 50 yards downfield and burn corners, a good starter can see mismatched coverage like Favre say a mlb covering a wide receiver . To me Huard doesn't have these qualities, he is the game manager, backup that can come in and keep you from losing a game when the starter goes down, he works ok for a couple games but then he needs to be going back to the starter, last year game management worked well, we could pound the ball on the ground and not rely on Huard to win it, this year the running game has struggled and Huard has relied on the D to beat other teams, with this if the D struggles, or the ground game doesn't go good then Huard has to win the game through the air, this is something he isn't comfortable with.

Now that LJ is out until Priest proves himself then opposing D will key in on Huard daring him to beat them, it is just something I dont see in Huard.

The number of receptions over 40 yards is like 2 so far this year, and I would almost bet those also were short throws that the receiver got a lot of yards after the catch, Brett Favre has 10 over 40 and I would think that at least 5 of those the throw has been over 30 yards, and the rest of them were Favre seeing mismatch as he did with the WR against our LB (Edwards I believe) this is what I miss with Damon Huard, It has been said many times that Croyle has a heck of an arm on him, I would like to see it.

The other stat I feel makes Huard a backup rather then a starter is the 23 sacks he has taken this year, I know sometimes you are better to take the sack then to throw an errant pass, actually I would say most always, but if we had a QB in that could scramble and make the good throw rather then take the sack then imagine the possibilities, I don't know that Croyle is that QB but I would like to know.

Lets take some risks, lets make people feat the QB, lets not manage unless the starter is hurt, lets make them talk about the Quarterback again.

DrunkHillbilly
11-06-2007, 04:42 PM
Guys, we haven't been beat that often by the deep ball this year really, until this game. Keep in mind that Favre has one of the best and most on-target deep-throws of any QB ever in the NFL. Deep plays are nothing new to the Packers or their opponents but Favre and company do it just as well or better than anybody, making it really hard to defend. A few mistakes at the end of the game cost us the win. The Packers finished and we didn't. Other than that, we did ok against a division-leading team that has only one loss halfway through the season. It sucks to lose-- even to a quality football team like Green Bay. However, the game was never out of reach against one of the better teams in the NFL. The Chiefs obviously need to get better still but at least we don't look as bad as the Ravens on offense...
4 losses, 4 deep balls either for a TD or to set up a TD in the red zone. I've been watchin it for 20 years!!! Worse yet, 8 out of ten times, it's up the middle as opposed to the sidelines. I don't care if it is because of play action or not, it happens way too much to the Chiefs and it has been costing us games for years!!!

hermhater
11-06-2007, 04:45 PM
Guys, we haven't been beat that often by the deep ball this year really, until this game. Keep in mind that Favre has one of the best and most on-target deep-throws of any QB ever in the NFL. Deep plays are nothing new to the Packers or their opponents but Favre and company do it just as well or better than anybody, making it really hard to defend. A few mistakes at the end of the game cost us the win. The Packers finished and we didn't. Other than that, we did ok against a division-leading team that has only one loss halfway through the season. It sucks to lose-- even to a quality football team like Green Bay. However, the game was never out of reach against one of the better teams in the NFL. The Chiefs obviously need to get better still but at least we don't look as bad as the Ravens on offense...

Daunte Culpepper sucks and he did it for about sixty yards against us. Would have been 80 but Pollard or Page wasn't beat quite enough to make a shoe string tackle.